The extent to which we should support the suspension of universal rights and freedoms in order to guarantee the preservation of democracy
The author of this source believes in liberalism. He expresses that the preservation of democracy is more important than universal rights and freedoms, and that there are certain circumstances that call for the suspension of these rights and freedoms in order to preserve the democracy. The idea reflected in the source is one of collectivism; it proposes that individuals should make a sacrifice for the greater good of the nation.
In certain circumstances it is necessary to suspend the rights and freedoms of the people in order to protect them from losing those same rights and freedoms. It is acceptable for a liberal government to put a policy like this in place when a suitable situation arises, however the policy should under no circumstances be taken advantage of and used for purposes other than what it was originally intended for. Often the actual outcome of this suspension of rights and freedoms does not correspond with the proposed purpose of the initial action. A number of factors come into play when a government suspends the rights and freedoms of its people. Things such as a struggling economy and a nation of desperate or fear-stricken individuals can affect the outcome of such an act.
A good example of a time during which citizens’ rights and freedoms were suspended due to the circumstances, was the implementation of the Patriot Act in the US. After the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the government implemented the Patriot Act which was supposed to take away universal rights and freedoms of the citizens in order to protect the nation against terrorism. Because the United States had a relatively stable economy (compared to that of Nazi Germany) before this suspension of rights and freedoms, a democratic government will inevitably prevail. The implementation of the Patriot Act has not gone exactly as planned though; government officials and law enforcers have taken advantage of the power this act has given them. Because we naturally assume that terrorists have a certain phenotype, in practice the suspension of rights and freedoms is not universal. In theory, the Patriot Act would be an effective suspension of individual rights and freedoms to guarantee the preservation of democracy, but in practice the act is misused.
Another example of the suspension of the rights and freedoms of a nation’s citizens was during Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany. This example demonstrates a circumstance where the consequence of the suspension of rights and freedoms differs from the position expressed by the source. World War One left Germany in a state of despair; there was a high unemployment rate, a massive debt, and a sky-rocketing inflation rate. People were desperate for better times and Hitler promised just that with only one exception – the suspension of individual rights and freedoms. After being democratically elected, Hitler prevailed as an authoritarian figure and took advantage of his power over Germany. In this case the suspension of universal rights and freedoms did not guarantee the preservation of democracy; in fact it did just the opposite. The suspension of individual rights and freedoms in Nazi Germany resulted in an authoritarian government who exploited their power over the people.
These two examples demonstrate that there are certain times and circumstances that necessitate the suspension of individual rights and freedoms, and there are other times that such a suspension of rights and freedoms results in a negative outcome. In the proper situation it is acceptable for a liberal government to take away the rights and freedoms of the citizens in order to ensure that the people are safe and the democracy is preserved. There are many factors that determine the outcome of the suspension of individual rights and freedoms. Due to human nature, it cannot be guaranteed that the initial intentions of the suspension of individual rights and freedoms are followed, and therefore such an action must be more intensely policed so that it doesn’t result in unwanted consequences.
